In Tomorrow’s Paper: Army Concludes Beauchamp Stories False [Gabriel Malor]

In case you haven’t seen it yet, the New York Times and the Washington Post will have the military’s Beauchamp investigation conclusion in tomorrow’s editions; both have fairly comprehensive treatments, though Howard Kurtz’s Post article is much lengthier. He notes that the investigation report will not be made public.

Of most interest to me, however, is what contact the newspapers have had with the military, specifically deputy PAO Maj. Lamb. Until now, followers of the controversy have been left to choose between the assurances of TNR that they got the story from Lamb and the claims of the Weekly Standard. Some entrenched Beauchamp defenders have explained that they are withholding judgment because they have only the Weekly Standard’s claims to go on (and you know how unreliable those right-wing mags are!).

Well, it appears that both the Times and the Post have received Army statements confirming the Weekly Standard’s version of events.

I can’t wait to hear what hear what Foer will say next. My question: if he knew things were going to end up this way (and how could he not?), why did he keep digging a hole for himself and his magazine?

h/t Himself-Himself.

Note for fellow Open Blog Weekend posters: Open Blogging has not resumed, but it looks like Ace is gone for the evening and I wanted to be sure you saw this. It is not Open Blog Night, got that? (This way if Ace doesn’t like that I’ve posted none of you will get caught in the crosshairs and only I will get asked not to post again when he gets angry. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry. ::shudder:: )

posted by xgenghisx at 12:02 AM

| Access Comments